Patna High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Doctor In 2012 Case, Says 'Mens Rea' Is A Must For ‘Negligence’ To Amount To Offence

The Patna High Court has quashed the proceedings in a criminal case against a doctor, who was accused of negligence during a hysterectomy in 2012.

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, observed, “There is difference between ‘Negligence’ and ‘Criminal Negligence’ and it is only criminal negligence which can be tried by a criminal court. For ‘Negligence’ to amount to offence, element of mens rea must exist. So long doctor follows practice acceptable to medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence.”

The petitioner Neeta Tripathi had challenged the order by which the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Chaprain, had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 304A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in a complaint filed by Gautam Singh, who alleged medical negligence in the treatment of his wife, Manju Devi, at the 'Tripathi Nursing Home, Chapra'.

It was alleged Manju Devi was admitted to the nursing home for a vaginal hysterectomy under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) scheme in February 2012. The complaint accused the petitioner of operating on her without performing the required clinical examinations and tests, leading to postoperative complications. The victim's condition did not improve, and she was eventually taken to Patna for another surgery at Atlantis Hospital, where she succumbed in March 2012.

However, the petitioner contended that she had provided appropriate medical care to the victim. The victim had been operated upon after thorough investigation and on following the standard operating procedure by the qualified doctors, the court was told.

The court noted that the victim was discharged from the nursing home after full recovery from her problems. The petitioner provided requisite medical care to the best of her ability till the victim was admitted in his nursing home, it added.

“Having considered rival submissions of the parties and on going through the decisions, I find that continuation of criminal proceeding would only be misuse of process of law,” the court said, while setting aside the cognizance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

However, the court also said the quashing of the cognizance order does not preclude the opposite party from claiming compensation, if so advised.

Neeta Tripathi @ Dr. Nita Tripathi Vs. State Of Bihar Criminal Miscellaneous No.48927 Of 2015

Appearance:

For The Petitioner: Mr.Alok Kr.Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. K.Jha, R.Tiwary & P.Kumar, Advocates, Advocates

For The State: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Addl Public Prosecutor

For Opposite Party No.2: Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment